The Native Races [of the Pacific states], Volume 5, Primitive History

In Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 398.

566

Quinantzin succeeded to the empire, and appointed his uncle, Tenancacaltzin, governor in Tenayocan, who usurped the throne in 1299; Huitzilihuitl, of Mexicans, obtained in marriage a niece of king Acolhua II. of Azcapuzalco; Coxcox succeeded Calquiyauhtzin as king of Culhuacan; the Xochimilcas were defeated by the aid of the Mexicans, and Acolhua II. became emperor in 1299; next, Acamapichtli used the Mexicans to conquer Coxcox, and made himself king of Culhuacan in 1301, but died in 1303 and was succeeded by Xiuhtemoc; Huitzilihuitl died in 1318, and the Mexicans chose as their king also, Xiuhtemoc of Culhuacan, where many of them had settled, under the rule of Acamapichtli, and where all now removed from Chapultepec, although against the wishes of the Culhua people; at last, in 1325, for no very definite reason, they were driven from Culhuacan and went to Acatzintitlan, or Mexicaltzinco; then they applied to the emperor Acolhua II. and were allowed to live for a time near Azcapuzalco, while their priests were searching for the predestined location of their future city; then took place the separation between the Mexicans and Tlatelulcas; the Tlatelulcas obtain a King from the emperor after having applied to Quinantzin in vain; Quinantzin regains the imperial throne from Acolhua II.; and finally, Tenochtitlan was founded in 1327. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 114-57.

567

Hist., tom. ii., pp. 402-3, 432-50.

568

On the foundation of Mexico, its date, and name, see —Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. iv. – vi.; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 92-3, 288-91; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 156-60; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 461; Tezozomoc, in Id., pp. 5, 8-9; Oviedo, Hist. Gen., tom. iii., p. 531; Acosta, pp. 465-6; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 167-9; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 21; Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 40; Arlegui, Chrón. Zacatecas, pp. 8-9; Cavo, Tres Siglos, tom. i., p. 2; Purchas his Pilgrimes, vol. iv., pp. 1066-7; Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 144, 204-5; Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. viii., pp. 405, 415; Müller, Amer. Urrel., p. 534; Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., p. 356.

569

Date 1325, according to Clavigero, Gama, Chimalpain, Brasseur, and Prescott; 1327, Veytia, following Sigüenza y Góngora; 1318, Duran; 1324, Codex Mendoza; 1140, 1141, or about 1200, Ixtlilxochitl; 1131, Camargo; 1326, Tezozomoc, in Veytia; 1316, Id., in Gondra; 1225, Chimalpain, in Id.; 1317, Sigüenza, in Id.; 1341, Torquemada, in Id.; 1321, Zapata, in Veytia; 1357, Martinez, in Veytia and Gondra.

570

On derivation of the name, see vol. ii., p. 559; also Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 92-3; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 5; Ixtlilxochitl, in Id., p. 461. These authors derive Tenochtitlan from the Aztec name of the nopal. Cavo, Tres Siglos, tom. i., p. 2, Müller, Amer. Urrel., p. 534, and Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., p. 315, derive Mexico from Metl-ico 'place amid the magueys.'

571

1357, Veytia; 1213, 1249, or 1253, Ixtlilxochitl; 1305, Brasseur.

572

Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 86-7; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 144-6; Veytia, tom. i., pp. 171, 176, 181; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 215-16, 352, 400, 453; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 275; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 422-5; Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., p. 39.

573

Xaltocan is spoken of by Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia as having been at this time subjected for the first time to the emperor. Its inhabitants were Otomís, and the refugees are said to have built, or rebuilt, the city of Otompan. Tezozomoc is represented as having borne the principal part in the war, while the emperor Techotl joined in it more to watch and restrain the allies than for anything else. Another war in Tlascala, in which forces sent by Techotl, are said by Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 265-8, to have participated, was, perhaps, the same already mentioned in connection with the king of Culhuacan.

574

Azcapuzalco, Mexico, Coatlichan, Huexotla, Coatepec, and four or five others are mentioned by Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 355, as paying no tribute; but some of these, according to other authorities, were actually joined to the kingdom of Acolhuacan, and had not even the honor of a tributary lord.

575

The list of those lords present at the funeral of Quinantzin and the coronation of Techotl, is as follows: Tezozomoc, king of Azcapuzalco; Paintzin, king of Xaltocan, lord of the Otomís; Mocomatzin, Moteuhzomatzin, or Montezuma, king of Coatlichan; Acamapichtli, king of Culhuacan and Mexico (this could not be, as Mexico was not yet founded; Coxcoxtli was king of Culhuacan, but Acamapichtli was, in one sense, chief of the Mexicans, and heir to the throne of Culhuacan); Mixcohuatl, or Mixcohuatzin, king of Tlatelulco (the Aztec Tlatelulco was not yet founded; Brasseur believes this to refer to an ancient city of this name); Quetzalteuhtli, or Quetzalatecuhtli, lord of Xochimilco; Izmatletlopac, lord of Cuitlahuac; Chiquauhtli, lord of Mizquic (Chalco Atenco, according to Brasseur); Pochotl, lord of Chalco Atenco (Ixtlilxochitl); Omaca, or Omeacatl, lord of Tlalmanalco; Cacamaca, lord of Chalco; Temacatzin, lord of Huexotzinco, (or as Brasseur has it, of Quauhquechollan); Tematzin, prince of Huexotzinco (Brasseur); Cocaztzin, lord of Quauhquelchula (Ixtlilxochitl); Teocuitlapopocatzin, lord of Cuetlaxcohuapan, or Cuetlachcoapan; Chichimecatlalpayatzin, high-priest of Cholula; Chichitzin, lord of Tepeaca; Mitl, prince of Tlascala; Xihuilpopoca, lord of Zacatlan; Quauhquetzal, lord of Tenamitec; Chichihuatzin, lord of Tulancingo; Tlaltecatzin, lord of Quauhchinanco; Tecpatl, lord of Atotonilco; Iztaquauhtzin, lord of the Mazahuas; Chalchiuhtlanetzin, lord of Coyuhuacan; Yohuatl Chichimecatzin, lord of Coatepec; Quiyauhtzin, lord of Huexotla; Tecuhtlacuiloltzin, lord of Acolman. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 353; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 428. Ixtlilxochitl says that these were not all, but merely the leading vassals, all related to the emperor. A list of 46 is given in Ixtlilxochitl, p. 355, and Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 214-15. 73 are said to have attended one assembly, 66 another, and 30 another.

576

Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 182-3, and Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 427, state that the distant provinces of Quauhtemalan (Guatemala), Tecolotlan (Vera Paz), Centizonac, Teoquantepec (Tehuantepec), and Jalisco, were represented in the crowd that gathered at Techotl's coronation, offering their homage and allegiance; but Ixtlilxochitl, p. 353, says that these provinces would not recognize the emperor. There is very little probability that the Chichimec power ever reached so far, but not unlikely that communication took place between Mexico and Central America at this period.

577

Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 195-6, implies that the new rites and ideas came rather from Mexican than Toltec influence.

578

The general Council of State, composed of all the highest lords, men of learning, ability, and character, was presided over by the emperor himself. Of the five special councils the first was that of war, under a lord who received the title of Tetlahto, and composed, according to Brasseur, of lords of the Acolhua nation. The second was the Council of the Exchequer, under a superintendent of finance, with the title Tlami, or Calpixcontli, having charge of the collection of tribute, and composed of men well acquainted with the resources of every part of the country, chiefly as is said Chichimecs, Otomís, and lords of Meztitlan. The third was the Diplomatic Council, whose president had the title of Yolqui, and was a kind of Grand Master of Ceremonies, whose duty it was to receive, present, entertain and dispatch ambassadors. Many of this council were Culhuas. The fourth was the council of the royal household, under the Amechichi, or High Chamberlain. This council was composed largely of Tepanecs. A fifth official, with the title of Cohuatl, superintended the work of the royal gold and silver smiths and feather-workers at Ocolco, a suburb of Tezcuco. The Spanish writers state that the president of each of the councils must be a relation of the emperor, or at least a Tezcucan nobleman. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 88; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 181; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 182-5; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 430-1.

579

There seems to have been some trouble between Ixtlilxochitl and the Tepanec king Tezozomoc, even before Techotl's death. Ixtlilxochitl was unmarried, although by his concubines he had many children; and, as Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 217-18, has it, he took Tezozomoc's daughter as a wife at his father's request, but sent her back before consummating the marriage; or, according to Ixtlilxochitl, p. 218, he refused to take Tezozomoc's daughter, who had already been repudiated by some one, except as a concubine. The same author, p. 356, says this occurred after his father's death. He finally married a Mexican princess. Tezozomoc was very much offended.

580

The emperor is said to have learned the Nahua language from his Culhua nurse Papaloxochitl, and to have become so convinced of its superiority that he ordered its adoption. Ixtlilxochitl, p. 217; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 194-5.

581

Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 217-8, says he was over sixty years old; Ixtlilxochitl gives 1338 as the date of his birth, which would make him less than twenty. The method of arriving at his age seems to be by fixing the date of his son's birth, noting that his father's wife was eight years old at her marriage, and taking into consideration the reported Chichimec custom which required the husband to wait until his wife was forty before consummating the marriage. Ixtlilxochitl was endowed, at birth, with thirteen towns or provinces; his mother is said to have been the sister of Coxcoxtli, king of Culhuacan.

582

1353, or 1357, Ixtlilxochitl; 1409, Veytia. On Techotl's reign see: Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 217-18, 353-6, 400-1, 453, 462; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 178-231; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 87-9, 108; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 180-1, 184; Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 276; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 16-17, 24; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 425-32, 457-61, 472-3.

583

Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 302; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 451. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 127-30, agrees, except in dates, so far as the succession of Acamapichtli is concerned, and his friendship for the Mexicans. He, however, says nothing of Achitometl II., dates Acamapichtli's death in 1303, and states that he was succeeded by his eldest son Xiuhtemoc. The Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 42, implies that Acamapichtli transferred his court in 1370 to Mexico, giving, as Motolinia, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 6, says, the lordship of Culhuacan to one of his sons. See also Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 218, 343, 349. Much of the confusion in the Culhua succession is caused by the fact that there were two Acamapichtlis, one, king of Culhuacan and in a certain sense the leader of the Mexicans, and the other, king of Mexico at a later date.

584

Gomara and Brasseur as above; also Brasseur, p. 465.

585

Torquemada, tom. i., p. 93; Duran, MS. tom. i., cap. x.

586

Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. vi.; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 9-10; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 471-3; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 99-101; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 176; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 22-3.

587

Hist., tom. ii., p. 454.

588

Veytia, tom. ii., p. 159, writes the name Tenuhctzin, and dates his election 1330. In the Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 40, it is stated that the other chiefs still continued to govern their clans. See also, Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 173-4; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 289-91; Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., p. 148.

589

See pp. 325-6 (#Page_324), of this volume.

590